Harper Government Suppresses Climate Report - Now Available Here

Harper Government Suppresses Climate Report - Now Available Here

Although the Conservative government has argued that a critical Health Canada report on climate change impacts is “too large” to be made available online, the DeSmogBlog has sourced a copy that you can now access through these links.

The report warns of forest fires, drought, and increased deaths from smog, heat and disease - a grim scenario against which the Conservative government is taking virtually no action. In fact, the Harper government's principal reaction was to try to supress the report, now available only by snail mail, with delivery in “two to four weeks.”

The 500 page “Human Health in a Changing Climate study” was supposed to be released early in 2008, with a coast-to-coast public engagement exercise. Instead the Harper government quietly revealed the document’s existence this summer, cancelled the publicity exercise and provided no on-line downloads.

The findings of this blue ribbon panel on the health impacts of climate change are grim to say the least. “Heat waves are very likely to increase in frequency and severity, which could lead to hundreds more heat-related deaths in Quebec and greater air pollution in cities such as Edmonton.”

The report also forecasts that more frequent heat waves will increase the number of heat-related illnesses and deaths and lead to more respiratory and cardiovascular disorders.

Frequent bouts of extreme weather - such as droughts, violent storms, heat waves and cold snaps - are expected to carry a higher risk of injuries, illnesses and stress-related disorders.

Air pollution, including higher levels of ground-level ozone and increased production of pollens and spores, will exacerbate asthma symptoms and allergies. Poor air quality will lead to more heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular diseases.

Outbreaks of E. coli, typhoid and other water-borne pathogens are also expected as drinking and recreational water is contaminated by run-off from heavy rainfall. And the report predicts new infectious diseases - and a comeback of others previously eradicated in Canada - will crop up across the country.

The authors call on the government to act quickly to prepare for these sweeping threats. “The findings of this Assessment suggest the need for immediate action to buttress efforts to protect health from current climate hazards.”

But Health Minister Tony Clement's response was that Canadians will “have to get used to” the gloomy scenario laid out in the report, adding, “This report makes it clear that if you have bad health outcomes now, you're likely to be more impacted by extreme weather events than if you're at the top of the health ladder.”

Previous Comments

I remember reading about this piece of hysteria during the summer when it was first reported in the MSM. This is hardly news. Perhaps Demsog/Hoggan PR felt the need to recycle it because of the election.

These hysterical pieces that pop up regularly are all predicated on the increasingly unlikely global warming scenarios spun by the IPCC (Nobel laureats all). These scenarios, the output of fudged climate models, are treated as fact and then outfits such as Health Canada extrapolate further. The result is guesswork built upon supposition. Reports like this one deserve to sink without a trace, which they usually do despite the efforts of Desmogger types to keep them afloat.

I wouldn’t say “fudged” climate models, but lets not misrepresent the fact that the data is necessarily fuzzy and the climate just doesn’t follow the orders of an electronic machine that cannot contain, measure and account for all the variables in a meaningful way.

I mean, my goodness, they measure old tree rings and count ice bubbles and are entering in the 30 year old pencil scratches from some guy in the jungle who probably wrote down a bunch of estimates because he didn’t want to risk going out and getting bit by a snake again.

Rick, I imagine that you really, really believe what you write. I don’t think you are lying. I just don’t think you’ve “got it” yet, or you are too afraid to deal with the consequences if you are wrong. I am prepared to admit my limitations and accept that there are people out there who know more about certain things than I do. Apparantly you are not.

Rick, you accurately state that climate models cannot possibly account for all the variables that influence weather and climate. That is why the modellers must make assumptions (fudge).

Veteran meteorologists make assumptions too but these are based on their experience. They have seen similar weather patterns before and can predict what is likely to happen in the next couple of days with a reasonable expectation of accuracy. This makes their job part science, part art.

Those attemting to predict what climate may do have no personal experience to draw upon to augment scientific shortcomings because none of them have lived through climate change. That is why predictions about future climate are b.s. Reports such as the one issued by Health Canada that rely on these “predictions” are likewise b.s.

Do not confuse climate and weather. The computer models that are used to predict climate are very sophisticated. There is really very little guesswork going on. The climate patterns work like a machine and can be predicted. There is considerable consensus about the changing weather patterns and scientists are a skeptical group. There is no b.s. about future climate predictions.

One of the problems with weather predictions is that they are so variable and climate predictions are not. In my part of the country, (western Canada) the low temperatures are a good 10ºC above anything I’ve seen in my lifetime (over 40 years) for this time of year. One of the problems with weathercasters is that they provide high temperatures for around the country and those are not the temperatures that are going to change significantly, it is the night time temperatures. The considerable rise in pollution in the atmosphere has the net effect of raising the low temperatures. There is a net increase of 10 billion metric tons of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere each year and this level is increasing because the ocean is no longer able to absorb CO2 at the rates it could absorb it in the past. This is one of the reasons the polar ice is melting at an accelerating rate. This CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 2,000 years. Something needs to be done and soon.

Oh, the horror! And you guys wonder why, with this over-the-top keening, you’re not taken seriously by rational people, or why Joe Sixpack continues to make global warming jokes every time there’s a severe cold snap.

Since you don’t give a crap about the misery of a possible worldwide depression, I assume that you’re either a) Independently wealthy or, b) Living on the public teat. If it’s the latter, oh how I hope you one of the first to get a pink slip!

But if you read it in paper form, how can you then quickly search through the whole document for your favourite terms without having to read the whole report? So that you can avoid reading it in vain in case it doesn’t back your claims?

Wow. I am really surprised by the majority of blogger comments on this site. The tone is that Global Warming/Climate Change is not a threat, which is ironic given the numerous comments about the economy. The economy fluctuates significantly more when there is significantly more uncertainty correct? Then shouldn’t it follow that the extreme uncertainty caused by the changing climate, which will effect everything from the amount of smog I breath in the city to my father’s food production in Alberta, will result increasing economic uncertainty?

And so the bloggers know, scientific predictions are based on current scientific evidence. In denying the prediction your are either denying the ability of professionals to interpret the evidence, or worse, you are denying the evidence. Though it would be ridiculous to say that “the sky is falling” based on predictions, it is far more ridiculous to reject predictions that are based on carefully collected evidence and scientific interpretation. In short, don’t panic, but heed the warning or stop pretending you are a rational person.

Don’t be put off by the present situation. The regular DeSmogBlog posters who can see the AGW writing on the wall are just taking a break from the monotonous & very tiresome trolls and deniers. As I am sure you can appreciate, trying to have a reasonable, informed conversation gets very frustrating when you have to make yourself heard over the absurd claims about sunspots etc.

I agree completely with Fern.
It is quite frustrating and futile to attempt to get AGW cultists to look beyond their doctrine and see the actualy reality around them.
There is no concrete evidence for AGW anywhere.
It is all conjecture and theories with huge assumptions on feedbacks that many say are just plain wrong.
I fear that AGW culsist are simply a bunch of silly twits that have found a fun cause to be a part of.
They are being milked by powerful people and have no idea it is going on.
It is really pathetic to have to endure the same tired old crap about CO2 being pushed by the IPCC and their paid lap dogs. CO2 is a minor infleuence at best and completely irrelevant at worst.
It is absolutely shameful to see you Peddle your silly fear mongering to inocent people that have no idea thay are being conned.

I don’t think you are stupid, but I think that perhaps you are very much afraid. Go back to the science. Look at the credentials of the people you trust, and compare them to those of the people who are having their voices heard.

Oh what the hell. I’m going to sleep. You guys duke it out amongst yourselves.

The science is what make me so frustrated.
The real science does not support the CO2 supremacy nonsence at all. Anyone that actually looks at it sees that.
Unfortunalely, most people just read the MSM and believe the propaganda.
It is truely sad to see so many people ge taken in by such a thinly vailed scam. Shameful.

Quite the opposite; anyone who does exactly what was just suggested to you and check the credentials of he overwhelming list of institutions who support the IPCC conclusions, then compares this to the ex-tobacco lobbyists and oil-sponsored thinktanks who keep repeating the same retired old denialist arguments will come to the opposite conclusion you just did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Note how even the “American Association of Petroleum Geologists” is not dissenting any more.

When you harp on with the same old “someone predicted cooling in the 70’s so therefore global warming can’t be happening now” and similar arguments you have part and responsibility in stalling the action on the most important issue of our time.

You can read and write and I will assume you’re not that stupid, therefore the only explanation(..not excuse) I can see is that you’re getting paid by some thinktank to repeat these argument on all forums you can find under as many sock puppets as possible.
If not, and you’re doing this for free, I really do think you are perverted.

Matthew, Desmog isn’t a dry science site that sifts numbers and bores people to death with actual science.

Instead it pursues the more interesting pastime of throwing sticks and stones at anything and everything that may pose a challenge to political moves that would attempt to alter the CO2 component of the atmosphere in a downward direction.

well thats great - but when we see all these sticks and stones flying around some of us join in the fun and occasionally throw a small pebble in the opposite direction.

I actually respect Harper. He has the courage of his convictions that few political leaders have in the world today. I come from Australia and we have one of the most insipid Prime Ministers in the world. At least Harper says it how he sees it and not to placate some mythical public opinion.

As for another blogger here who said: “And so the bloggers know, scientific predictions are based on current scientific evidence. In denying the prediction your are either denying the ability of professionals to interpret the evidence, or worse, you are denying the evidence.”

Well. Yes. I do say the ability of those scientists to predict dire outcomes of climate change is very suspect. I am a scientist and I see nothing in the climate record to date that concerns me.

The blogger who says our children will NOT survive the climate change that is visiting upon us should get out and smell the roses. Our species has been through worse climate change that we are experiencing today. We have survied two ice ages for god’s sake.

I’m instinctively wary of all politicians. Even if they have some good ideas and some competence, they still have to deal with complex situations, special interests and whoever they owe favors to. They deal with a changing world. They compromise. In the end they mostly fail.

Simple as that.
He knows that AGW is a myth.
He knows that he must pay lip service to it while it is politically correct.
He is doing exactly what is best for Canada.
Talk a good AGW line of BS, Do a little to appease the idiots and wait for sanity to return to the scene.

Sadly Rob, I may have to join you.
It is getting hard to stay civil in the face of such drivel.
The same old tired myths told by the same people with the same agenda.
My only hope is that the main drivers of the hoax are sued ruthlessly for losses when this is all over.
I won’t hold my breath though, I have not seen many TV evangelists made to pay back their scam winnings.

Regardless of how you interpret the evidence on global warming, it is clear that broader environmental policy is a crucial element in this election. Many of the issues at hand are not just about global warming scenarios: they relate to equally pressing concerns such as global water resources and changing over to cleaner sources of local (and renewable) energy wherever possible to reduce international energy dependencies.

The debate here echoes the leadership debate: who is really willing to show leadership over this and other pressing issues we face coming out of this election? YOU tell us what you think: www.LeadershipScorecard.com

Let’s be clear. I’m not against trying to clean up the environment and trying to limit our influence on the natural biota. I have donated to organizations who are trying to help populations of animals in various places around the world. I’m extremely concerned on the over population issue that is threatening species with extinction.

What I’m against is pseudoscience. And AGW dogma is pseudoscience. (As opposed to the THEORY of global warming). Funneling BILLIONS to this cause is siphoning off money that could be better used to help the biota and our impact on it. AGW is not doing any of that. It’s just allowing some people to get rich off it (ie, Gore and Hansen).

Somehow, it appears that we have to focus more attention upon the emerging and converging scientific evidence of ominously looming global threats to the family of humanity that are posed by the overpopulation, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human species rampantly overspreading Earth in our time.

The ecological challenges presented to the human community in these early years of Century XXI are vital matters for discussion; however, our failure to acknowledge in open discussion “the human population factor” as a primary, driving force, one that is precipitating the ecological challenges visible on the far horizon, is making our best, necessary efforts insufficient.

Steven Earl SalmonyAWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
established 2001 http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php

Steven:
Your point is well taken.
Population is a far more real and immediate problem than the Climate. (which we can’t do anything about anyway)

While it is not really related to the AGW debate I for one would be interested in knowing what your proposed plan of action would be.

In the face of several religious groups that seem bend on world domination by population, how would you solve the problem with out resorting to the usual natural solutions.IE: famine, War, Desiese, pestalance.

First, I want to know who pays for this site, the Liberals, NDP or the Green Party?
Second, it is not warming. There has been no warming for the last 10 years and this year the planet (yes, all of it) dropped .7 to .8 degrees C. The unknown is how much more it will cool by the end of the year. Since solar cycle 24 is not starting and the solar wind has dropped to never before seen levels, we are in for a few more and maybe a lot more years like this.
What the AGW crowd should know is that warming is good, crops grow, people live better while global cooling is bad, less food, more crop failures, starvation and more cold deaths.
We do not have a choice of planet temperatures, oore is not God but we can at least not make it worse with a carbon tax or by reducing CO2 emissions.

Eve, Eve, Eve. The planet is warming. You’re guilty of cherry-picking at its worst.

First of all, in 1998, there was a very strong El Nino, which typically causes global temperatures to climb dramatically. Those who whine that the planet has cooled since 1998 are wrong, as 5-year average temperatures (i.e. 1997-2001, 1998-2002, 1999-2003, etc.), which iron out effects from El Ninos, the NAO, and other teleconnections, have increased. since the mid-20th Century (after the effects of the massive aerosol dump declined).

Also, this past year was a fairly strong La Nina, which typically leads to a dramatic decline in global temperatures.

Regarding the solar variation association, that’s all been debunked most recently by Lockwood and Frohlich (2007) (seen here: http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf), as well as others.

Oh, and the “CO2 = Life” crowd has already been discredited, so no need to spout on about that. There’s a limit to what plants can take in with respect to CO2, and there’s evidence that the limit has already been reached, if not exceeded.

Stephen, the earth has experienced several periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were many times the current level. So why didn’t the earth reach a tipping point then? Where is the evidence that the planet cannot handle CO2 levels higher than they are now?

..unless you go back dozens of millions of years, but then it’s not really relevant to the present situation any more.
It hasn’t been near as high since homo sapiens left Africa for sure - and definitely not near as high with 6.5 billions of people depending on a stable climate for our food production…

Nice try Stephan
There was indeed a strong El Nino in 98 that was responsible for a large portion of the infamous 20th century warming period.
The fact is that global temps have been flat from 02 to 07 and dropped so much in 08 that all of the warming of the modern warm period (75 to 02)has been wiped out. So Technically, there has been no net warming since 75.
The past year marks the change to cold phase of the PDO. Get ready for 30 year of cooling. The PDO cycle is approximately 30 years of warm followed by 30 year of cool. Nothing new here, just more natural cycles.

The Solar influence has NOT been debunked and is indeed the dominent driver for the ocean cycles that actually drive climate.

CO2 plays a very small roll in warming and is only pushed by the multibillion dollar AGW industry to shame the ignorant into forking over their money.

And you really should go check your facts on CO2 and plants. They thrive at 1000 ppm in green houses all over.
We are no where near the upper safe limit of CO2 and all you AGW cultists know it perfectly well.
Stop spreading discredited BS. It does not impress anyone with a brain.

Your reply was quite presumptuous. Guess I hit a nerve. I have noticed that this blog has gotten ruder and with more wild untrue or half true claims (usually but not exclusively on the skeptic side) all the time.

Anyways…this made me laugh.

“Al Gore is god and David Suzuki is his profit.” I presume you meant to type “prophet”. Gore somehow earning Suzuki for his efforts may be ironic but a pretty strange idea.

I deliberately used “profit”. Both Gore and Suzuki are making money from this AGW scam. And Suzuki pays Hoggan PR (which also has alternative energy clients who benefit from AGW promotion) to run this web site so Hogganites also rake it in by pimping AGW hysteria. Profits all.

Yes these greedy AGW hypocrites are making fortunes running their website, probably hundreds or even thousands of dollars, and they will stop at nothing to protect their enormous profits. Unlike nice honest oil companies like Exxon who’s only making tiny amounts on the order of “biggest profits ever made by any company throughout history” and who probably wouldn’t try to do anything to protect this or lie to anyone…

Isn’t it time that we take down these evil oil companies before the employ even more of us?
Isn’t it our duty to shut them down before we are completely spoiled by healthy economies and good living standards?

They should be ashamed of themselves for providing jobs and spin off opportunities for literally millions and millions of unfortunates that could have been home on the dole like good socialists should be.

“healthy economies”
…I really must congratulate you on the great timing on that point!

“good living standards”
You mean like the indian tribes in the Ecuadorian Amazon dying of cancer after Texaco dumped toxic waste there for 30 years in order to save a dollar per barrel?
http://justicianow.org
http://www.chevrontoxico.com/section.php?id=6

Yes is it time we take these greedy bastards down and drag them in to court. We would not still be burning their dirty fuel if they hadn’t been stalling progress for generations. The engine first build by Diesel over a hundred years ago ran on peanut oil!

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.